User:BD2412/Archive 053

*It is **The Reader** that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.*
**(Thanks to Alan Liefting, via BMK)**

This user prefers to communicate
on-wiki, rather than by email.

Status: Active. bd2412 T

Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412
Archives: By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):; Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th; Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):

001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015

016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030

031-032-033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045

046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058

Happy New Year!

BD2412,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks. BD2412 T 23:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, BD2412!

Happy New Year!

BD2412,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will count this as a favorite barnstar. BD2412 T 21:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello BD2412,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Nomination of Let Her Burn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Let Her Burn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Her Burn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bedivere (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have replied in the discussion. The idea that an album on multiple "most anticipated album lists" from reliable sources will fail notability is not very well-taken. BD2412 T 01:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

WP: BASIC vs. WP: ENT

Greetings - I'm still working on my Draft: Reya Sunshine (and definitely not submitting until any post-AVN coverage has a chance to happen), but I've been cruising through some of the deletion discussions on porn bios. It seems to me that WP:BASIC and WP:ENT are often mentioned in the same breath by many editors, but they also seem like different standards. WP:BASIC seems harder to achieve, but once accomplished, conveys "presumed" notability. WP:ENT, however, seems much more achievable in comparison:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3)

WP:ENT doesn't seem to require "significant coverage" the way WP:BASIC does, it just seems that whatever sources conveyed the information in 1. and 2. of WP:ENT would have to be reliable. For example, for the AfD of Emily Willis, it seems like an argument could have been made that she met WP:ENT for her participation in multiple films that received AVN or XBiz awards (granted, this probably would have had to be in some "best film"- style category. I'm not trying to re-litigate that action or anything, but have you ever witnessed a decision that was along the lines of "doesn't meet WP:BASIC, but meets WP:ENT due to X, Y, and Z? Ajax0714 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The products of the industry as a whole are generally considered non-notable. We have tens of thousands of articles on films, and only a handful on pornographic films. BD2412 T 01:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Got it - how about the second line of WP:ENT, 'Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment,' have you ever seen a porn bio use that to justify notability? Ajax0714 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but only where there are non-industry sources on the subject (e.g. Veronica Hart). Look at Category:American pornographic film actresses for useful precedents. Other articles I have worked on in this space with similar non-industry coverage include Monique Alexander and Ariana Marie. BD2412 T 01:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the link!! Ajax0714 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate you adding the additional source to Draft: Reya Sunshine! If you've got the time, have you ever had any experience with sources like "Live play, live sex: The parallel labors of video game live streaming and webcam modeling" or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrNuRDAArU0 before? They're not like most articles, but both look like significant coverage to me (as well as secondary, independent, and reliable). The YT mini-documentary is a 15-minute vid of which the most relevant parts are from 4:32-9:00, and I'm not sure if you'll be able to see anything of the academic article beyond the abstract, but the subject's YT vid formed a major part of the research that was conducted by author. Ajax0714 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amie Donald (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Sourcing appears to be focused on the trailer and upcoming movies promotional tour materials, interviews.

Lack of in-depth coverage of the actress herself.

Likely WP:TOOSOON

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amie Donald and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BD2412! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure of this myself, that's why I submitted rather than just moving it over. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Just came here because was reviewing my AfCs and realized you were the editor. I going to ask if I missed something in the references, but your response shows AfC working (or at least I didn't break this one) Slywriter (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an edge case. The LA Times reference goes somewhat more into the subject and her history/contributions to the film than the others, but it is still fairly weak. However, I can't imagine this will remain the case for long, given the buzz around the film. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I've added to it and published it. Thanks for starting the draft! Schwede 66 11:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	You are so helpful and supportive Dinah5667 (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what I've done to deserve this, but many thanks! BD2412 T 03:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

IP talkpage blanker bot run

MalnadachBot Task 13 has made tons of progress after 6 months continuous run at 25 edits per minute. At 6.5 million edits till now, this has been way above my initial estimate of 2 million pages. This task has shot the bot past the 10 million edits mark, making it the first account to reach this milestone. Blanking non-blocked IPv4 talkpages older than 5 years is mostly done. Much of the remaining ones are IPv6 which are harder to filter blocked ones out, so will be slower. Per query/67404 there are still 551k inactive talkpages of inactive IPs, including IPs which are currently blocked. I guess at least 350k of them will be blanked by the time IPv6 is done. Then it will be matter of periodic runs to cleanup newer ones. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That is quite a remarkable and historical feat! BD2412 T 17:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Question, re: "blank" AfD nom

Question: What's the proper procedure for a "blank" AfD nom, like this one?... FTR, I don't believe this new editor is operating in good faith (or, at the least, is clueless) – Julianna Guill is an occasional vandal target, and I get the feeling that this is another one of these. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In this situation, I would just finish the nomination (basically create the appropriate template with the note that "an editor has placed an AfD tag on this article without providing a reason"). It will probably be WP:SNOW kept within a few days, after which a renomination would be considered disruptive. BD2412 T 02:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Article on Mass Editing

I saw you did an article on mass editing. I was asked to look into a mass editing situation from a friend who runs a music website. The company is going through a domain shortening / change on their website. Basically it is going from abc123.com => abc.com.. They have something like 4,000 pages on wikipedia where they are referenced and they are trying to avoid having all those references going bad. Is there a way to mass edit every url to find+replace each reference with the new updated shorter domain? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@ScienceAdvisor: If it is a matter of substituting one string of characters for another in a reasonably easy to identify set of articles, then that is no problem at all. What is the change? BD2412 T 00:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
ConsequenceofSound.net and ConsequenceOfSound.net, all of their links need to be shortened to Consequence.net but with the same url ending. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The site consequenceofsound.net is moving everything to consequence.net. Same urls, just need to shorted the domain on all the articles that use this site as a reference. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Is moving, as in, the move has not been undertaken yet? BD2412 T 00:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Moved, the links are active on the new website, they just haven't deactivated the old links yet. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@ScienceAdvisor: I have updated a few hundred of these, which is all that were returned by either a Google search or a Wiki text search in the reader-facing spaces. BD2412 T 03:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help. I was noticing them disappearing as I was going through them. If you search "ConsequenceOfSound.net" exactly on wikipedia it will give you a link where you receive 4751 results. Many of the pages I am checking through source code and they still have urls that say consequenceofsound.net in the URLs. Is there a way to check those?ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Take for example this page, Cat Stevens. It doesn't show anything from the viewer side but if you check the source code there are still 3 instances of the old site url. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If I google wikipedia and use the see results from wikipedia search bar.. then type in consequenceofsound.net .. it comes back with 23,600 results still. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I see that I am getting a different set of returns each time I conduct a new search after fixing a set. This may take some time. Any idea how much we have? BD2412 T 04:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't dare to presume. I do appreciate your help though. Thank you very much! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we pause for a second.. I noticed your editing might be causing some 404 errors by inserting a date into the url. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I took a look and it doesnt appear to have anything to do with you.. I apologize.. Thank you so much for your help. The links I saw was broken before it was edited. I looked at the changes. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@ScienceAdvisor: Thanks. An error of that sort should not be possible, as AWB is a dumb instrument, and can only substitute consequence.net for consequenceofsound.net. However, I also have general fixes turned on (an AWB background protocol which fixes certain common errors on every page touched). I will turn it off for now. BD2412 T 18:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but it wouldnt insert data into the urls. I checked the history and the changes show the url wasnt touched which means it was broken before the page was edited. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Ignore me if this problem is already in hand, but the bots at Wikipedia:URLREQ may be helpful. Certes (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi BD2412 and @ScienceAdvisor: I appreciate the efforts you have taken to cleanup many of these errors. However, I would like to add that a lot these ConsequenceofSound.net citations actually need direct archive links because the new Consequence website has scrubbed the old review ratings, which are very very often precisely what is being cited on these pages that you are updating. Thanks. Οἶδα (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I tested a few of these and the archive links are still working links. Are you saying that the archive content is different once the link is changed? BD2412 T 19:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  It shouldnt be. it should be the same website, just at a different url.. There might be an updated logo or some small cosmetic changes but the content and urls should be identical. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  
  Apologies, I seem to be mistaken. There was a problem before where the ratings from ConsequenceofSound.net were not transferred over to Consequence.net (which no longer assigns ratings to their reviews). I see now that they do display the old ratings in a strange gradient font. Sorry about that! Carry on with the great work! Οἶδα (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  
  @BD2412 Seriously, thank you so much for helping. Are you using google search results from wikipedia to find the additional edits? Are we making a dent? Thank you!!! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  At this point I do think we have a substantial portion of these done. I am not finding additional URLs containing the string. BD2412 T 02:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  I am using google and I am only seeing links in foreign language wikipedias. Thanks for your help. If I come across another way to search for them, I may give you a shout.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  Which ones? I can fix these in some other languages. BD2412 T 03:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  I googled this exactly and I am still seeing quite a few.. - "consequenceofsound.net" site:wikipedia.org .. without the quotes I still see 19,600 results. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  with the quotes, i still see 1300 or so but some are talk pages. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  Some of these will be from the "publisher=" parameter of the citation template, identifying the source but not linking to it. BD2412 T 03:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  Yeah, not worried about simple text, just urls. Are they all like that? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  There is no particular uniformity to how editors write the name of a source. Actually, it could also be in a "website=" parameter, which is not the same as the URL. BD2412 T 03:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  Thanks for all your help with the editing. If I can buy you a cup of starbucks or lunch at chipolte lmk! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  If you're in my area, certainly. BD2412 T 19:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  I was just going to email you a gift card ... I have another question.. I created a page in an old redirect and the page is fine but when I search the name in the wiki search bar the redirect page still appears instead of the actual page.. Any ideas?ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  I just do a search for the name followed by a dash. BD2412 T 03:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, sort of...

Thanks, sort of, for your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_proposed_national_monuments_of_the_United_States. IMO, you should have judged it as "Keep" rather than "no consensus to delete". You stated "After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and a reasonable basis in policy for keeping a list of proposals where the proposals themselves are or can potentially be sourced", and I think that is exactly correct reasoning for "Keep".

Your further comment "I would further suggest moving everything that is in fact unsourced or self-sourced to the talk page for individual examination and discussion", is sensible and good.

I don't mean to be complaining, and I am certainly not motivated to appeal the decision ( wp:DRV?), I am just meaning this as feedback to you that I read your own assessment differently. Thanks, anyhow, for contributing by closing the discussion which had run its course. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion and I continue to believe that my close was correct. There were multiple participants on both sides of the question making policy-based arguments. Both the numbers and the strength of arguments favored keeping the article, but there was not a clear consensus established for it. That said, I think that if this article if improved along the lines suggested, there will not be further thought of deleting it. BD2412 T 17:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

AWB Redirects

Hey, if you check your deleted contributions, I think your AWB run might be parsing whatever you're using to create the redirects wrong. It's adding the first name twice. Also Pax Brittanica, pinging you since this is why its a good idea to let people know you've tagged something for deletion. If there is a problem, it can be solved. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: It's a two step process. The first step creates the redirect with a "subst:PAGENAME" and the second step removes the extra portion of the name. BD2412 T 23:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'll take your word for it. Anyway, they're being tagged for speedy deletion so wanted to let you know. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  - No worries, this is now resolved. BD2412 T 23:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Fair enough. I'll have to hold up my hands here, I am a tad on the green side. I'll make sure to do this properly next time 👍 Pax Brittanica (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Prickilie Bush" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Prickilie Bush and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 2 § Prickilie Bush until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Laun chba ller 07:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I have now added references to the article showing use of "Prickilie Bush" as a longstanding alternative title to the song. BD2412 T 17:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Richard Livingston Goode

Hello, BD2412. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Richard Livingston Goode, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.